<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD with OASIS Tables with MathML3 v1.1 20151215//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing-oasis-article1-mathml3.dtd">
<article article-type="review-article" dtd-version="1.1" xml:lang="en" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">IC</journal-id>
			<journal-title-group>
				<journal-title>Informes de la Construcci&#xf3;n</journal-title>
				<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Inf. constr.</abbrev-journal-title>
			</journal-title-group>
			<issn publication-format="electronic">1988-3234</issn>
			<issn-l>0020-0883</issn-l>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient&#xed;ficas</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">ic.91684</article-id>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3989/ic.91684</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Articles</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Resistance towards gender equality policies in Spanish building engineering sector</article-title>
				<trans-title-group xml:lang="es">
					<trans-title>Resistencia ante las pol&#xed;ticas de igualdad de g&#xe9;nero en el sector espa&#xf1;ol de la ingenier&#xed;a de edificaci&#xf3;n</trans-title>
				</trans-title-group>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6579-1972</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Recalde-Esnoz</surname>
						<given-names>Irantzu</given-names>
					</name>
					<role>Soci&#xf3;loga</role>
					<email xlink:href="irantzu.recalde@uah.es">irantzu.recalde@uah.es</email>
					<aff id="aff1"><institution>Universidad de Alcal&#xe1;</institution>, <addr-line>Alcal&#xe1; de Henares</addr-line> (<country>Espa&#xf1;a</country>).</aff>
					<aff id="aff1a"><institution>Universidad Polit&#xe9;cnica de Madrid</institution>, <addr-line>Madrid</addr-line> (<country>Espa&#xf1;a</country>).</aff>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3842-547X</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Ferr&#xe1;ndez</surname>
						<given-names>Daniel</given-names>
					</name>
					<degrees>Doctor en Ingenier&#xed;a de Edificaci&#xf3;n</degrees>
					<aff id="aff2"><institution>Universidad Polit&#xe9;cnica de Madrid</institution> (<country>Espa&#xf1;a</country>).</aff>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6969-7075</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Dorado-Escribano</surname>
						<given-names>Guadalupe</given-names>
					</name>
					<degrees>Doctora en Educaci&#xf3;n</degrees>
					<aff id="aff3"><institution>Universidad Polit&#xe9;cnica de Madrid</institution> (<country>Espa&#xf1;a</country>).</aff>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6928-5134</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Mor&#xf3;n</surname>
						<given-names>Carlos</given-names>
					</name>
					<degrees>Doctor en F&#xed;sica</degrees>
					<aff id="aff4"><institution>Universidad Polit&#xe9;cnica de Madrid</institution> (<country>Espa&#xf1;a</country>). </aff>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<pub-date pub-type="epub">
				<day>16</day>
				<month>08</month>
				<year>2022</year>
			</pub-date>
			<pub-date pub-type="collection">
				<month>09</month>
				<year>2022</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>74</volume>
			<issue>567</issue>
			<elocation-id>e459</elocation-id>
			<history>
				<date date-type="received">
					<day>18</day>
					<month>10</month>
					<year>2021</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>15</day>
					<month>03</month>
					<year>2022</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="pub">
					<day>06</day>
					<month>09</month>
					<year>2022</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<copyright-statement>&#xa9; 2022 CSIC</copyright-statement>
				<copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
				<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
					<license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.</license-p>
				</license>
			</permissions>
			<self-uri xlink:href="http://informesdelaconstruccion.revistas.csic.es/index.php/informesdelaconstruccion/article/view/XXXX/XXXX"/>
			<abstract>
				<title>Abstract</title>
				<p>Among all the industrial activities being developed around the world, the construction sector is certainly the most male-dominated sector. For this reason, this project analyzes the opinion regarding gender equality held by workers in this sector in Spain. In order to accomplish this goal, a web survey of 1353 building engineers across the country has been conducted (48.7% men, 51.3% women), which makes it the biggest sample analyzed to date. The results show men, older workers, self-employed, and workers having higher levels of revenues in the construction sector as those with the most unfavorable attitude towards gender equality in the profession. These results also reveal the groups where it is most needed to implement awareness-raising actions in order for the gender equality policies to be successful in the Building Engineering sector in Spain.</p>
			</abstract>
			<trans-abstract xml:lang="es">
				<title>RESUMEN</title>
				<p>Entre todas las actividades industriales que se desarrollan en todo el mundo, el sector de la construcci&#xf3;n es sin duda el sector m&#xe1;s masculinizado. Por ello, en esta investigaci&#xf3;n se analiza la opini&#xf3;n relativa a la igualdad de g&#xe9;nero que poseen trabajadores/as de este sector en Espa&#xf1;a. Para lograr este objetivo, se realiz&#xf3; una encuesta web a 1353 ingenieros/as de la construcci&#xf3;n en todo el pa&#xed;s (48,7% hombres, 51,3% mujeres). Los resultados muestran que los varones, los trabajadores de mayor edad, los aut&#xf3;nomos y los trabajadores con mayores niveles de ingresos en el sector son los que tienen la actitud m&#xe1;s desfavorable hacia la igualdad de g&#xe9;nero en la profesi&#xf3;n. Estos resultados tambi&#xe9;n permite vislumbrar en qu&#xe9; colectivos se necesita, con mayor urgencia, implementar acciones de sensibilizaci&#xf3;n para que las pol&#xed;ticas de igualdad de g&#xe9;nero tengan &#xe9;xito en el sector de la ingenier&#xed;a de la edificaci&#xf3;n en Espa&#xf1;a.</p>
			</trans-abstract>
			<kwd-group>
				<kwd>attitudinal survey</kwd>
				<kwd>building engineering</kwd>
				<kwd>construction industry</kwd>
				<kwd>gender equality</kwd>
				<kwd>Spain</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="es">
				<kwd>encuesta actitudinal</kwd>
				<kwd>ingenier&#xed;a de edificaci&#xf3;n</kwd>
				<kwd>industria de la construcci&#xf3;n</kwd>
				<kwd>igualdad de g&#xe9;nero</kwd>
				<kwd>Espa&#xf1;a</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<counts>
				<fig-count count="0"/>
				<table-count count="11"/>
				<equation-count count="0"/>
				<ref-count count="55"/>
				<page-count count="10"/>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
	<body>
		<sec id="sec1" sec-type="intro">
			<label>1.</label>
			<title>Introduction</title>
			<p>In modern democratic societies, since the second half of the XX century, a due account has been taken of equal working opportunities (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref>). Nowadays, the economy and the labor market are considered as the second area where there is greater global inequality. There are only 36% of the positions of power in private and public sectors that are held by women. Furthermore, around 55% of women throughout the world are in the labor market, whereas the percentage related to men reaches 78% on a global level. This percentage disparity shows inequality in access to the labor market (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>). In the European Union-27 countries from 2020, the employment rate presented by the EUROSTAT institute displays that 74% of men have a job, as opposed to 63% of women (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>). These figures show part of the existing gender inequalities in the labor sphere. </p>
			<p>Therefore, knowing the attitude towards gender equality becomes vital for the success of policies leading to a reduction of inequality. Results presented by Ipsos for the Spanish case reveal that Spanish men have a more negative attitude (or an attitude of rejection) than women towards gender equality. Furthermore, the attitude of Spanish men towards gender equality analyzed by Ipsos is in coherence with the findings obtained by the research conducted by Arroyo Barrio in 2017 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>). These are the same results expected to be found in the Engineering Building sector. This study contributes to raising awareness about gender inequality in the Spanish labor area, more specifically in the Building Engineering field. In Spain, research conducted about the attitude towards gender equality in the Building Engineering sector is scarce, and although Infante et al. established an approach to be followed <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8 B9 B10 B11">(8)-(11)</xref>, there is still much to investigate. Moreover, the dynamism of the current society (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>), requires an updating of the social research data in view of the speed of social changes. The main goal of this study is to know the attitude of building engineers towards gender equality and to ascertain whether or not their attitude and perception towards equality vary by sex. To this end, a web questionnaire has been developed and was subsequently responded by 1353 participants, the biggest sample obtained to date in Spain. This made it possible to have the biggest and most accurate vision about the opinion of building engineers in Spanish society to an extent never achieved before. This way, it is intended to provide the scientific and business community with an analysis of the attitude of engineers towards gender equality. Results help to raise awareness about the need to work more on the democratic values already mentioned and on elaborating policies allowing a substantial improvement of the women&#x2019;s situation in the construction sector. In order to achieve these goals, firstly, and through a review of scientific literature, the problem of gender inequality in the work sphere and its importance as a democratic principle is highlighted. Secondly, attention will be focused on gender inequality in the construction sector. Thereupon, methodology, discussion of results, and conclusions will be presented. </p>
			<sec id="sec1.1">
				<label>1.1.</label>
				<title>Gender equality in the construction sector</title>
				<p>The low rate of women employed in the construction sector in Spain is not a phenomenon exclusive to this country (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>), the construction industry is the most male-dominated sector in all countries of the world (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>). Percentages regarding the labor market access are similar in different countries. These figures have only slightly changed in relation to the last years <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16 B17 B18">(16)-(18)</xref>. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), in 2018, the percentage of women employed in the construction sector reached 10% in the case of the United States; in India, for that same year, the percentage was 8%, and Argentina did not reach 4% (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>).</p>
				<p>Women&#x2019;s unequal access to the labor market in the construction sector is increasingly under study in scientific literature in different countries (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20 B21 B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30">20-30</xref>). These investigations share the vision of the construction sector as one of the labor markets being more associated with gender stereotypes. The construction sector is believed to be a rough and dirty sector, an inappropriate place for femininity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>), <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31 B32 B33">(31)-(33)</xref>. In a highly male-dominated working environment, women are often left out. This hinders their entrance and participation in the building labor market (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">21</xref>), <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34 B35 B36">(34)-(36)</xref>. The limited opportunities to enter the world of work entail low labor market participation. As a consequence, there is a lack of work experience, and less accumulated experience implies difficulties in finding a job (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">37</xref>). Therefore, promoting women&#x2019;s access to the construction sector is a critical issue. </p>
				<p>Apart from the obstacles faced by women that hamper their entrance to the construction industry, there are other barriers met by female employees in this field throughout their professional careers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">36</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">38</xref>). These barriers hinder the exercise of their work, the fact of obtaining positions of power, and finally, their continuity in the sector (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">29</xref>). Among the most studied barriers, we could mention the incompatibility of the particular features of the sector (such as the lack of flexible working hours), the nomadic nature of site works, presenteeism, or long working hours together with domestic, and family responsibilities (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">36</xref>). Another reported obstacle is the discrimination suffered by women in the recruitment or promotion procedures in the construction sector. On the one hand, it is due to the existence of stereotypes, as still today, men are expected to be better in project management than women. On the other hand, there are informal male exclusive contact networks, where contracts and promotions are negotiated, among other issues. This is known as a homosocial behavior phenomenon (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">34</xref>), <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36 B37 B38 B39 B40 B41 B42">(36)-(42)</xref>. </p>
				<p>In the light of the foregoing, and for the commitment with gender equality and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B43">43</xref>), the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture (CGATE, in Spanish) has conducted a survey among professionals working in the sector. The survey covered the situation of women in the construction industry (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B44">44</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B45">45</xref>) and the goal of this project is to analyze the findings revealed in that survey. Thus, we could know the attitude of Spanish building engineers towards gender equality, and determine if their attitude and perception towards equality differs according to the gender of professionals in this sector. This way, we could draw conclusions supported by a bivariate analysis that will enable us to know the real situation on equality faced by building engineers in Spain in the exercise of their profession.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec id="sec2" sec-type="methods">
			<label>2.</label>
			<title>Method</title>
			<sec id="sec2.1">
				<label>2.1.</label>
				<title>Procedure and sample characterization</title>
				<p>Participants of this study are a representative sample of the professionals belonging to associations of Official Colleges of Building Engineers in Spain in 2018. At that time, there was a total of 49821 members, 79.2% were men (39302 professionals), and 20.8% female (10341 professionals) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>). Among the 1353 interviews that were conducted, 659 respondents were male (48.7%), and 694 were female (51.3%), see <xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>. Assuming simple random sampling, and in the most unfavorable hypothesis being <italic>p=q=</italic>0.5, the sampling error for the total sampling is &#xb1;2.7%. For men, the sampling error is &#xb1;3.9, and for women it is &#xb1;3.8%. The questionnaire was administered by Computer Assisted Web Interviews (CAWI), using <italic>Google Forms</italic>. The fieldwork was done between September and December 2018, and the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture was in charge of this task. Once the data are collected, the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture gave the right of dataset exploitation to the current research team for analysis.</p>
				<p>To ensure the ethics of scientific research, the design of the questionnaire and its implementation was supervised by the Data Protection Officer of the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture. The link to the online survey was provided through a banner in the same webpage of the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture. In order to gain access to the questions, participants had to previously read a document where the goals and objectives of the study were presented. There were also issues such as the approximate duration of the questionnaire and the willingness and anonymity guaranteed by the Data Protection Law existing in Spain (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">47</xref>).</p>
				<p>The questionnaire was designed by the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture. It is composed of 39 close questions, being four of them sociodemographic questions which will allow us to characterize the sample (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>). The rest of questions measure the opinion of workers towards different issues related to gender equality, reconciliation of family life, equal pay or equal treatment in the Building Engineering sector. </p>
				<table-wrap id="t1">
					<label>Table 1</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify" rowspan="3">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Total Sample </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Men </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Women </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">N</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">N</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">N</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">1353</th>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">659</th>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">694</th>
								<th align="left"> </th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Age</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">&lt; 30 years </td>
								<td align="center">130</td>
								<td align="center">9.6</td>
								<td align="center">39</td>
								<td align="center">5.9</td>
								<td align="center">91</td>
								<td align="center">13.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">30-40 years </td>
								<td align="center">413</td>
								<td align="center">30.5</td>
								<td align="center">180</td>
								<td align="center">27.3</td>
								<td align="center">233</td>
								<td align="center">33.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">41-50 years </td>
								<td align="center">523</td>
								<td align="center">38.7</td>
								<td align="center">223</td>
								<td align="center">33.8</td>
								<td align="center">300</td>
								<td align="center">43.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">51-60 years </td>
								<td align="center">201</td>
								<td align="center">14.9</td>
								<td align="center">139</td>
								<td align="center">21.1</td>
								<td align="center">62</td>
								<td align="center">8.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">&gt;60 years </td>
								<td align="center">86</td>
								<td align="center">6.4</td>
								<td align="center">78</td>
								<td align="center">11.8</td>
								<td align="center">8</td>
								<td align="center">1.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify" colspan="7">Exercise of the profession </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">382</td>
								<td align="center">28.2</td>
								<td align="center">143</td>
								<td align="center">21.7</td>
								<td align="center">239</td>
								<td align="center">34.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">166</td>
								<td align="center">12.3</td>
								<td align="center">73</td>
								<td align="center">11.1</td>
								<td align="center">93</td>
								<td align="center">13.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">805</td>
								<td align="center">59.5</td>
								<td align="center">443</td>
								<td align="center">55.0</td>
								<td align="center">362</td>
								<td align="center">45.0</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Monthly income</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">&lt; 500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">70</td>
								<td align="center">5.2</td>
								<td align="center">30</td>
								<td align="center">4.6</td>
								<td align="center">40</td>
								<td align="center">5.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">500-1000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">209</td>
								<td align="center">15.4</td>
								<td align="center">82</td>
								<td align="center">12.5</td>
								<td align="center">127</td>
								<td align="center">18.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">397</td>
								<td align="center">29.3</td>
								<td align="center">173</td>
								<td align="center">26.3</td>
								<td align="center">224</td>
								<td align="center">32.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">1501-2000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">345</td>
								<td align="center">25.5</td>
								<td align="center">165</td>
								<td align="center">25.1</td>
								<td align="center">180</td>
								<td align="center">26.0</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">2001-3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">248</td>
								<td align="center">18.3</td>
								<td align="center">145</td>
								<td align="center">22.0</td>
								<td align="center">103</td>
								<td align="center">14.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">&gt; 3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">82</td>
								<td align="center">6.1</td>
								<td align="center">63</td>
								<td align="center">9.6</td>
								<td align="center">19</td>
								<td align="center">2.7</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN1">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>The bulk of the sample (more than 60%) was aged between 30 and 50 years old, 9.6% being under 30 years of age, and 6.4% over 60 years of age. As regards how the profession is done, 59.5% carry on their profession on a self-employed basis, followed by 28.9% who work as an employee for others. As far as monthly revenues are concerned, more than 50% of the sample earn between 1000 and 2000 &#x20ac;, although it should be noted that, over a quarter of the sample (20.6%) are paid less than 1000 &#x20ac; per month. When disaggregating data according to gender and age, for ages above 51, there is a greater presence of men (32.9%) than women (10.1%). Furthermore, there are more women than men working as an employee for others, or in the public sector. In relation to the income, the results indicate a higher presence of women in the lowest areas. 18.3% of women earn between 500 and 1000 &#x20ac;, as opposed to 12.5% of men who are in the same salary level. On the contrary, those receiving a larger salary are mainly men.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec id="sec2.2">
				<label>2.2.</label>
				<title>Data analysis</title>
				<p>The questions raised in the analysis are linked to the respondents&#x2019; perception of gender equality. Firstly, they were asked about their perception towards gender equality in general terms; secondly, about equality in the personal working environment, and thirdly, about a future readiness to promote equality in the sector (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>).</p>
				<table-wrap id="t2">
					<label>Table 2</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Questions raised in the analysis</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Perception towards gender equality in the field</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Who encounters more difficulties in entering the profession?<break/>
									Who would a client or developer choose when hiring a technical service?<break/>Having the same experience and training, who has more chances to be hired by a company in the field?<break/>Having the same experience and training, are women equitably remunerated compared to men?</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Perception towards gender equality in the field in the personal working environment</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Your colleagues with technical training are mainly male</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">In your working environment, men&#x2019;s and women&#x2019;s opinions are equally valued </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Future readiness to promote equality</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">You believe in the possibility to take actions that improve the reconciliation of family life and the work in the non-regulated profession<break/>Actions should be taken by the professional organization in order to study the real situation of women in the construction sector</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN2">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>In order to know the respondents&#x2019; answers and the sociodemographic characteristics associated to the answers, a bivariate analysis has been conducted using the Chi-square test. Furthermore, the strength association is determined with Cramer&#x2019;s V or &#x3c6; (Phi), according to <italic>nxm</italic> or <italic>2x2</italic> contingency tables (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B48">48</xref>). Both statistics (Cramer&#x2019;s V and &#x3c6;) indicate the strength of association with a value between 0 and 1; the closer it is to 1, the greater the strength of association of the variables analysed. When dealing with variables of a social nature, a high strength of association is considered from values at 0.3 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B48">48</xref>). Apart from that, we thoroughly studied the categories where a greater association between the sociodemographic and the content variables is displayed; that is, going beyond the variable analysis to go into much more detail with the study of the corrected typified wastes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B48">48</xref>). In the contingency tables rendered in the next section, it will be indicated with arrows, those cells whose corrected typified wastes (the typified difference between the observed and expected frequency) are higher than 1.96. This means that the association between categories has a reliability level higher than 95.5%. The following is the notational system used to represent this: up arrows (&#x2191;) representing a positive association, that is, when there are more cases than expected in a random distribution; and down arrows (&#x2193;) when there are fewer cases than expected in a random distribution, and therefore, that entails a negative association.</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec id="sec3" sec-type="results">
			<label>3.</label>
			<title>Results</title>
			<p>The results hereunder will be presented following the order exposed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>. Firstly, we analyze the content variables related to the perception of equality in the building engineering field. Secondly, the results of the analysis of those variables linked to the perception of equality in the respondent&#x2019;s immediate working environment are revealed. Finally, the content variables implying a willingness to introduce new measures to achieve increased equality in the field will be examined. </p>
			<sec id="sec3.1">
				<label>3.1.</label>
				<title>Equality in the field</title>
				<p>One of the first questions addressed to the sample was the perception of the gender who encounters more difficulties in entering the building engineering profession, men, women, or both genders equally. As is evident from <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Table 3</xref>, 59.1% of the sample (800 cases) believes that it is more difficult for women to enter the profession. 40.1% (542 cases) considers both genders, men, and women equally, and 0.8% (11 cases) admits that men will be affected the most when entering the profession.</p>
				<table-wrap id="t3">
					<label>Table 3</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>Who encounters more difficulties in entering the profession?</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Men </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Women </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Both </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">11</th>
								<th align="center">0.8</th>
								<th align="center">800</th>
								<th align="center">59.1</th>
								<th align="center">542</th>
								<th align="center">40.1</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Sex (V: 0.330)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Men</td>
								<td align="center">7</td>
								<td align="center">1.1</td>
								<td align="center">280</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>42.5</td>
								<td align="center">372</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>56.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Women</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">0.6</td>
								<td align="center">520</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>74.9</td>
								<td align="center">170</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>24.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Age (V: 0.108)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">&lt; 30 years </td>
								<td align="center">0</td>
								<td align="center">0.0</td>
								<td align="center">96</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>73.8</td>
								<td align="center">34</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>26.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">30-40 years </td>
								<td align="center">5</td>
								<td align="center">1.2</td>
								<td align="center">260</td>
								<td align="center">63.0</td>
								<td align="center">148</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>35.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">41-50 years </td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">0.8</td>
								<td align="center">306</td>
								<td align="center">58.5</td>
								<td align="center">213</td>
								<td align="center">40.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">51-60 years </td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">0.5</td>
								<td align="center">100</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>49.8</td>
								<td align="center">100</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>49.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">&gt; 60 years </td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">1.2</td>
								<td align="center">38</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>44.2</td>
								<td align="center">47</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>54.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify" colspan="7">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.108) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">2</td>
								<td align="center">0.5</td>
								<td align="center">266</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>69.6</td>
								<td align="center">114</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>29.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">0.6</td>
								<td align="center">107</td>
								<td align="center">64.5</td>
								<td align="center">58</td>
								<td align="center">34.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">8</td>
								<td align="center">1.0</td>
								<td align="center">427</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>53.0</td>
								<td align="center">370</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>46.0</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN3">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>In judging these results according to those sociodemographic characteristics presenting a statistical association, the gender of the respondent shows a stronger association (one of the highest in the study, <italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic> = 0.330). In fact, there are wide percentage differences in the replies given by men and women. Women consider, to a greater extent, that women encounter more difficulties in entering the profession. 74.9% of women certainly think that, as opposed to 42.5% of men who hold the same vision. There are large statistically meaningful percentage differences in regards to the opinion of both genders as having problems when entering the profession. 56.6% of men take this view, as opposed to 24.5% of women. Accordingly, whereas most women claim that women are the worst affected gender when entering the profession, the vast majority of men do not see any differences. Men believe that both genders are likewise affected.</p>
				<p>Another statistically significant association of this content variable with the variable &#x2018;age&#x2019; (<italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic> = 0.108) and the variable &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (<italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic> = 0.108) is also present. When analyzing the corrected typified wastes, younger age groups (below the age of 30) consider to a greater extent that the gender who encounters more difficulties when entering the profession is the female gender. They account for 73.8% (96 cases). The older respondents (those that are 51-60 and above) believe, to a greater extent, that no differences between genders are found when entering the profession. </p>
				<p>Finally, with regards to the &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019;, the most critical individuals with the situation of women are the salaried employees (69.6%, 266 cases). However, the self-employed individuals consider, to a lesser degree, that no differences are seen regarding gender when entering the profession (46.0%, 370 cases). </p>
				<p>In the survey, another question addressed to the respondents made them reflect on the gender that a client or developer would choose when hiring a technical service. In <xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">Table 4</xref>, we can observe how 54.7% (740 cases) of the sample considers that the client or developer would hire equally, and regardless of gender. 43.6% (590) indicates that the client or developer would hire a man. Finally, 1.6% (22 cases) declares that the client or developer would prefer a woman for this technical service.</p>
				<table-wrap id="t4">
					<label>Table 4</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>Who would a client or developer choose when hiring a technical service?</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Men </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Women </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Either </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">590</th>
								<th align="center">43.6</th>
								<th align="center">22</th>
								<th align="center">1.6</th>
								<th align="center">740</th>
								<th align="center">54.7</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="7">Sex (V: 0.285) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">192</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>29.1</td>
								<td align="center">13</td>
								<td align="center">2.0</td>
								<td align="center">454</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>68.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">398</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>57.4</td>
								<td align="center">9</td>
								<td align="center">1.3</td>
								<td align="center">286</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>41.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="7">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.094) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">195</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>51.0</td>
								<td align="center">9</td>
								<td align="center">2.4</td>
								<td align="center">178</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>46.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">84</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>50.9</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">1.8</td>
								<td align="center">78</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>47.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">311</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>38.6</td>
								<td align="center">10</td>
								<td align="center">1.2</td>
								<td align="center">484</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>60.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="7">Monthly income (V: 0.098) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt; 500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">35</td>
								<td align="center">50.0</td>
								<td align="center">2</td>
								<td align="center">2.9</td>
								<td align="center">33</td>
								<td align="center">47.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">500-1000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">104</td>
								<td align="center">49.8</td>
								<td align="center">5</td>
								<td align="center">2.4</td>
								<td align="center">100</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>47.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">189</td>
								<td align="center">47.6</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">1.0</td>
								<td align="center">204</td>
								<td align="center">51.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1501 -2000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">139</td>
								<td align="center">40.3</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">1.2</td>
								<td align="center">202</td>
								<td align="center">58.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">2001-3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">103</td>
								<td align="center">41.5</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">1.6</td>
								<td align="center">141</td>
								<td align="center">56.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt; 3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">20</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>24.4</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">3.7</td>
								<td align="center">59</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>72.0</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN4">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>Once more, the variable &#x2018;sex&#x2019; of the respondent discloses a high statistical association (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.285). If attention is paid to the corrected typified wastes, men believe, to a great extent (68.9% - 454 cases), that the developer or client would hire either gender. Nonetheless, women who have participated in the survey think differently. Most women (57.4%, 398 cases) admit that the developer or client would rather hire a man for the technical service. </p>
				<p>Although the strength of association is not that high, the variables &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V =0.094) and &#x2018;monthly income&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.098) also present a significant statistical association with this question. Regarding the &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019;, salaried employees (51.0%, 195 cases), followed by officials or similar (50.9%, 84 cases) perceive a higher inequality. They consider that men would be the preferred choice of the developer or client. Meanwhile, self-employed individuals (60.1% of this specific group, 484 cases) consider to a great extent, that the client or developer will not take into account the technician&#x2019;s sex. Finally, those having the highest salary (more than 3000 &#x20ac; per month) believe to a much greater extent that the developer or client would hire a person for the technical service, without regard to the gender (72.0%, 59 cases). </p>
				<p>In another question of the survey, respondents were asked about the ease to be hired in a company of the sector. On this occasion, as displayed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Table 5</xref>, 61.9% of the sample (837 cases) claims that it is easier for men to be hired. 35.4% (479 cases) does not find any differences in relation to gender when being hired by a company. 2.7% (36 cases) consider that it is easier for women to be hired. </p>
				<table-wrap id="t5">
					<label>Table 5</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>Having the same experience and training, who has more chances to be hired by a company in the field?</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Men </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Women </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Either </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">837</th>
								<th align="center">61.9</th>
								<th align="center">36</th>
								<th align="center">2.7</th>
								<th align="center">479</th>
								<th align="center">35.4</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Sex (V: 0.370)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">288</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>43.7</td>
								<td align="center">32</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>4.9</td>
								<td align="center">339</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>51.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">549</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>79.2</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>0.6</td>
								<td align="center">140</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>20.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Age (V: 0.117)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt; 30 years </td>
								<td align="center">89</td>
								<td align="center">69.0</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">2.3</td>
								<td align="center">37</td>
								<td align="center">28.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">30-40 years </td>
								<td align="center">267</td>
								<td align="center">64.6</td>
								<td align="center">8</td>
								<td align="center">1.9</td>
								<td align="center">138</td>
								<td align="center">33.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">41-50 years </td>
								<td align="center">334</td>
								<td align="center">63.9</td>
								<td align="center">10</td>
								<td align="center">1.9</td>
								<td align="center">179</td>
								<td align="center">34.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">51-60 years </td>
								<td align="center">105</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>52.2</td>
								<td align="center">6</td>
								<td align="center">3.0</td>
								<td align="center">90</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>44.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt; 60 years </td>
								<td align="center">42</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>48.8</td>
								<td align="center">9</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>10.5</td>
								<td align="center">35</td>
								<td align="center">40.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="7">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.086) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">263</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>68.8</td>
								<td align="center">10</td>
								<td align="center">2.6</td>
								<td align="center">109</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>28.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">113</td>
								<td align="center">68.5</td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">0.6</td>
								<td align="center">51</td>
								<td align="center">30.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">461</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>57.3</td>
								<td align="center">25</td>
								<td align="center">3.1</td>
								<td align="center">319</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>39.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="7">Monthly income (V: 0.100) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt;500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">44</td>
								<td align="center">62.9</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">5.7</td>
								<td align="center">22</td>
								<td align="center">31.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">500-1000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">137</td>
								<td align="center">65.6</td>
								<td align="center">8</td>
								<td align="center">3.8</td>
								<td align="center">64</td>
								<td align="center">30.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">252</td>
								<td align="center">63.5</td>
								<td align="center">11</td>
								<td align="center">2.8</td>
								<td align="center">134</td>
								<td align="center">33.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1501 -2000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">218</td>
								<td align="center">63.2</td>
								<td align="center">6</td>
								<td align="center">1.7</td>
								<td align="center">121</td>
								<td align="center">35.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">2001-3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">154</td>
								<td align="center">62.1</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">1.6</td>
								<td align="center">90</td>
								<td align="center">36.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt;3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">32</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>39.0</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">3.7</td>
								<td align="center">47</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>57.3</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN5">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>As displayed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Table 5</xref>, other sociodemographic variables that are statistically associated with this question are &#x2018;age&#x2019; (<italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic>= 0.117), &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (<italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic>= 0.086), and &#x2018;monthly income&#x2019; (<italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic>= 0.100). With respect to the variable &#x2018;age&#x2019;, the corrected typified wastes reveal that the percentage differences in the older groups present a statistical association. The respondents pertaining to the age groups 51-60 (52.2%, 105 cases) and above 60 (48.8%, 42 cases) consider to a lesser extent that it is easier for men. Respondents in the age group 51-60 consider to a great extent that there are no gender-based differences when being selected by a company, as this process is not linked to gender (44.8% of this group, 90 cases). </p>
				<p>The variable &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; preserves the dynamics of the questions discussed above. The salaried employees are the most critical respondents by reporting to a great extent that it is easier for men (68.8%, 263 cases). Nevertheless, the self-employed group claims that the staff selection does not depend on gender (39.6%, 319 cases), as the corrected typified wastes study show. Finally, regarding the &#x2018;monthly income&#x2019;, those receiving higher salaries (more than 3000 &#x20ac;) consider to a great extent (57.3%, 47 cases) that the staff selection does not depend on gender. This makes it to be statistically significant. </p>
				<p>In order to finalize the analysis of questions related to the perception of equality in the Technical Architecture sector, the opinion concerning equal pay for men and women has been analyzed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">Table 6</xref>. 54.4% of the sample set (735 cases) believes that there is still a wide pay gap between men and women, whereas 45.6% of the sample declares that there are no disparities (616 cases). </p>
				<p>As displayed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">Table 6</xref>, the Chi-square test study brings back statistical significance in all the sociodemographic variables outlined in the study. In the variable &#x2018;sex&#x2019;, the strength of this association is the highest association throughout the inquiry (&#x3c6; = 0.369). The study of the corrected typified wastes in this variable reveals that men consider to a great extent that wages are equal (64.4%, 424 cases), whereas a vast majority of women admitted not to be remunerated in the same fair manner as their male colleagues (72.3%, 501 cases).</p>
				<table-wrap id="t6">
					<label>Table 6</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>Having the same experience and training, are women equitably remunerated compared to men?</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Yes </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">No </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">616</th>
								<th align="center">45.6</th>
								<th align="center">735</th>
								<th align="center">54.4%</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Sex (&#x3c6;: 0.369) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">424</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>64.4</td>
								<td align="center">234</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>35.6%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">192</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>27.7</td>
								<td align="center">501</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>72.3%</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Age (V: 0.158) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt; 30 years </td>
								<td align="center">54</td>
								<td align="center">41.9</td>
								<td align="center">75</td>
								<td align="center">58.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">30-40 years </td>
								<td align="center">163</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>39.6</td>
								<td align="center">249</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>60.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">41-50 years </td>
								<td align="center">227</td>
								<td align="center">43.4</td>
								<td align="center">296</td>
								<td align="center">56.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">51-60 years </td>
								<td align="center">115</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>57.2</td>
								<td align="center">86</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>42.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt; 60 years </td>
								<td align="center">57</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>66.3</td>
								<td align="center">29</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>33.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.166) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">124</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>32.5</td>
								<td align="center">257</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>67.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">78</td>
								<td align="center">47.3</td>
								<td align="center">87</td>
								<td align="center">52.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">414</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>51.4</td>
								<td align="center">391</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>48.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Monthly income (V: 0.106) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt;500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">31</td>
								<td align="center">44.3</td>
								<td align="center">39</td>
								<td align="center">55.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">500-1000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">89</td>
								<td align="center">42.6</td>
								<td align="center">120</td>
								<td align="center">57.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">160</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>40.3</td>
								<td align="center">237</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>59.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1501 -2000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">162</td>
								<td align="center">47.0</td>
								<td align="center">183</td>
								<td align="center">53.0</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">2001-3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">124</td>
								<td align="center">50.0</td>
								<td align="center">124</td>
								<td align="center">50.0</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt;3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">50</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>61.0</td>
								<td align="center">32</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>39.0</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN6">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>In regards to the variable &#x2018;age&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.158), the same dynamic can be seen. Older age groups perceive less inequality, whereas the youngest groups are the most critical. This time, respondents between 30 and 40 years old believe to a great extent that there is a discrepancy between the wages levels paid between male and female workers, to the detriment of women (60.4%, 249 cases). People in the 51-60 age group (57.2%, 115 cases) together with the group above 60 (66.3%, 57 cases) claim that wages are indeed equal. Regarding the variable &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019;, the salaried employees mainly report the gender inequality in wages. 67.5% (257 cases) of salaried employees believe that women wages are not fair vis-&#xe0;-vis their male colleagues. Nevertheless, respondents who declare working as self-employed believe that wages are equal (51.4%, 414 cases).</p>
				<p>Finally, when examining the variable &#x2018;monthly income&#x2019; we can once more observe that those having higher salaries (more than 3000 &#x20ac; per month) are the least critical with the pay gap. 61.0% (50 cases) believe in the existence of a fair wage gap between men and women. Nonetheless, respondents earning between 1001 and 1500 &#x20ac; per month are the most critical age group in this question. 59.7% (237 cases) claim that salaries are not distributed equally amongst men and women in the Building Engineering sector, being women the worst affected group.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec id="sec3.2">
				<label>3.2.</label>
				<title>Equality in the personal working environment</title>
				<p>In this section, we are going to analyze two questions related to the equality in their own company, or in their job. Firstly, respondents are requested to indicate the gender of the majority of their colleagues. As can be seen in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t7">Table 7</xref>, 68.9% of the sample believes that their colleagues are mainly male (931 cases), followed by 23.2% (314 cases) who believe that there is an equal percentage of men and women. 7.9% (107 cases) of the sample declares that their colleagues are mainly women. In this occasion, the bivariate analysis of this question conducted through the Chi-square test brings back statistical association with the following sociodemographic variables: &#x2018;sex&#x2019; (<italic>&#x3c6;</italic> = 0.326) and &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (<italic>Cramer&#x2019;s V</italic> = 0.118). </p>
				<table-wrap id="t7">
					<label>Table 7</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>Your colleagues with technical training are mainly male</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Men </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Women </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Similar <break/> proportion</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">931</th>
								<th align="center">68.9</th>
								<th align="center">107</th>
								<th align="center">7.9</th>
								<th align="center">314</th>
								<th align="center">23.2</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Sex (V: 0.087)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">427</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>64.8</td>
								<td align="center">61</td>
								<td align="center">9.3</td>
								<td align="center">171</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>25.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">504</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>72.7</td>
								<td align="center">46</td>
								<td align="center">6.6</td>
								<td align="center">143</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>20.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="7">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.118) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">269</td>
								<td align="center">70.4</td>
								<td align="center">23</td>
								<td align="center">6.0</td>
								<td align="center">90</td>
								<td align="center">23.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">84</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>50.9</td>
								<td align="center">29</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>17.6</td>
								<td align="center">52</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>31.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">578</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>71.8</td>
								<td align="center">55</td>
								<td align="center">6.8</td>
								<td align="center">172</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>21.4</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN7">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>As far as the variable &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; is concerned, we should outline the percentage of self-employed individuals (71.8%, 578 cases) who believe that their colleagues are mainly men. This situation changes in officials or similar, as 31.5% of them declare that their colleagues are men and women, in the same proportion (52 cases). It is worth stressing that, it is within this group where we find the highest percentage of respondents who esteem that their colleagues are mainly women, reaching 17.6% (29 cases).</p>
				<p>A second question related to the personal experience in the working environment requested respondents to consider whether or not, in their opinion, in their working environment, opinions coming from men and women are equally valued. In accordance with <xref ref-type="table" rid="t8">Table 8</xref>, a majority agreement is reached in the sample set. 76.0% (1028 cases) admit that opinions coming from men and women are equally valued, regardless of the gender of the person. 24.0% (324 cases) has a different view of the matter. </p>
				<table-wrap id="t8">
					<label>Table 8</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>In your working environment, opinions coming from men and women are equally valued</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Yes </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">No </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">1028</th>
								<th align="center">76.0</th>
								<th align="center">324</th>
								<th align="center">24.0</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Sex (&#x3c6;: 0.326) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">595</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>90.3</td>
								<td align="center">64</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>9.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">433</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>62.5</td>
								<td align="center">260</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>37.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Age (V: 0.116) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt; 30 years </td>
								<td align="center">96</td>
								<td align="center">74.4</td>
								<td align="center">33</td>
								<td align="center">25.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">30-40 years </td>
								<td align="center">291</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>70.5</td>
								<td align="center">122</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>29.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">41-50 years </td>
								<td align="center">399</td>
								<td align="center">76.3</td>
								<td align="center">124</td>
								<td align="center">23.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">51-60 years </td>
								<td align="center">168</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>83.6</td>
								<td align="center">33</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>16.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt; 60 years </td>
								<td align="center">74</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>86.0</td>
								<td align="center">12</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>14.0</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.115) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">264</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>69.1</td>
								<td align="center">118</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>30.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">120</td>
								<td align="center">72.7</td>
								<td align="center">45</td>
								<td align="center">27.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">644</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>80.0</td>
								<td align="center">161</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>20.0</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Monthly income (V: 0.124) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&lt; 500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">50</td>
								<td align="center">71.4</td>
								<td align="center">20</td>
								<td align="center">28.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">500-1000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">151</td>
								<td align="center">72.2</td>
								<td align="center">58</td>
								<td align="center">27.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">283</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>71.3</td>
								<td align="center">114</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>28.7</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">1501 -2000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">267</td>
								<td align="center">77.4</td>
								<td align="center">78</td>
								<td align="center">22.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">2001-3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">202</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>81.5</td>
								<td align="center">46</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>18.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">&gt; 3000 &#x20ac;</td>
								<td align="center">74</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>90.2</td>
								<td align="center">8</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>9.8</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN8">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>The distribution of answers is statistical significant in all the variables included in the analysis (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t8">Table 8</xref>). In this sense, the variable &#x2018;sex&#x2019; presents again a greater strength of association (&#x3c6; = 0.326), followed by the variables &#x2018;monthly income&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.124), &#x2018;age&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.116) and &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.115). Focusing attention on the corrected typified wastes, significant percentage differences in men&#x2019;s and women&#x2019;s opinion are observed, being women the group who believes the most that opinions coming from men and women are not equally valued (37.5%, 260 cases). The 90.3% (593 cases) of men participating in the study claims that opinions coming from men and women are equally valued.</p>
				<p>Concerning the &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019;, the most critical group with the fact of valuing the opinion of men and women alike are the salaried employees, where 30.9% (118 cases) do not think that it is valued alike. On the contrary, self-employed agree the most with the fact of opinions being equally valued (80.0%, 644 cases). Finally, after due analysis of the variable &#x2018;monthly income&#x2019;, it appears that individuals earning between 1001 and 1500 &#x20ac; are those who believe the most that opinions are not equally valued, whereas individuals with higher wages (2001-3000 &#x20ac; and more than 3000 &#x20ac;) consider to a great extent that opinions are equally valued.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec id="sec3.3">
				<label>3.3.</label>
				<title>Actions in the future</title>
				<p>In order to conclude the results section, we will analyze the respondents&#x2019; attitude or readiness to promote equality in the Building Engineering sector. In the first question, shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t9">Table 9</xref>, respondents were asked about the possibility to take actions that improve the reconciliation of family life and work. There was a broadly shared view in the sample set, that is, 93.1% (1259 cases) believe in the possibility to take actions that improve the reconciliation of family life and work. 6.9% (93 cases) do not share this view.</p>
				<table-wrap id="t9">
					<label>Table 9</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Do y<italic>ou believe in the possibility to take actions that improve the reconciliation of family life and work?</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Yes </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">No </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">1259</th>
								<th align="center">93.1</th>
								<th align="center">93</th>
								<th align="center">6.9</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Sex (&#x3c6;: 0.092)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">598</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>90.7</td>
								<td align="center">61</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>9.3</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">661</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>95.4</td>
								<td align="center">32</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>4.6</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.075) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">365</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>95.5</td>
								<td align="center">17</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>4.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">157</td>
								<td align="center">95.2</td>
								<td align="center">8</td>
								<td align="center">4.8</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">737</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>91.6</td>
								<td align="center">68</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>8.4</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN9">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>The sociodemographic variables that expose a statistical association with this question are &#x2018;sex&#x2019; (&#x3c6; = 0.092) and &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.075); both with a low strength of association. The study about the corrected typified wastes found that again women consider the most that actions improving the reconciliation could be conducted (95.4%, 661 cases). A view that is shared by a vast majority of men, although the percentage is lower, as it dropped significantly, 79.5% (524 cases). Finally, differences in &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; reveal a high level of agreement regarding the actions to be carried out in order to improve the reconciliation in participants working as salaried employees (95.5%, 365 cases). </p>
				<p>In the last question, respondents were asked whether or not actions should be taken by the professional organization in order to study the real situation of women in the Building Engineering sector. By comparison with the previous question, <xref ref-type="table" rid="t10">Table 10</xref> indicates that although the percentage of those in agreement with this measure is high, it decreases to 86.5% (1169 cases). With reference to the statistical association of this question with the sociodemographic variables included in the analysis, &#x2018;sex&#x2019; (&#x3c6; = 0.198) and &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019; (Cramer&#x2019;s V = 0.143) are the variables that bring back a significant statistical.</p>
				<table-wrap id="t10">
					<label>Table 10</label>
					<caption>
						<title>
							<italic>Actions should be taken by the professional organization in order to study the real situation of women in the construction sector</italic>
						</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">Yes </th>
								<th align="center" colspan="2">No </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left"> </th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
								<th align="center">n</th>
								<th align="center">%</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="left">TOTAL</th>
								<th align="center">1169</th>
								<th align="center">86.5</th>
								<th align="center">183</th>
								<th align="center">13.5</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Sex (&#x3c6;: 0.198)</td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
								<td align="left"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Men</td>
								<td align="center">524</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>79.5</td>
								<td align="center">135</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>20.5</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Women</td>
								<td align="center">645</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>93.1</td>
								<td align="center">48</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>6.9</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left" colspan="5">Exercise of the profession (V: 0.143) </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Salaried employee</td>
								<td align="center">350</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>91.6</td>
								<td align="center">32</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>8.4</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Official or similar</td>
								<td align="center">155</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>93.9</td>
								<td align="center">10</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>6.1</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="left">Self-employed</td>
								<td align="center">664</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2193;</sup>82.5</td>
								<td align="center">141</td>
								<td align="center">
									<sup>&#x2191;</sup>17.5</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN10">
							<p>
								<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
				<p>The analysis reveals that men manifest more their opposition to the actions taken by the professional organization in order to study the real situation of women in the construction sector. This opposition is declared by 20.5% of the male respondents (183 cases). In the case of women, 93.1% (645 cases) consider that actions should be taken by the professional organization. Finally, self-employed individuals show again a great rejection to this kind of actions. 17.5% (141 cases) believe that this kind of actions should not be carried out. </p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec id="sec4" sec-type="conclusions">
			<label>4.</label>
			<title>Conclusions</title>
			<p>The <xref ref-type="table" rid="t11">Table 11</xref> provides the sociodemographic characteristics that proved to be statistically significant in the study of the corrected typified wastes in each variable. This approach allows us to know that in all the dimensions analyzed, women are more critical. They perceive discrimination or inequality, whereas men believe that there is equality, and therefore, the gender issue does not touch the working environment they belong to. Furthermore, there is a clear pattern in the respondents&#x2019; opinions according to their age. In this case, younger workers (below 40 years of age) perceive the most inequality in their working environment. On the contrary, older individuals (over the age of 51 years) are the group that considers the most that equality has been achieved in their working environment. They do not perceive inequality or discrimination against women. In relation to the kind of job, self-employed individuals do not see any discrimination against women in their sector, whereas the salaried employees and officials or similar are the most critical with this situation, they perceive the most the inequality. In line with wages, people with lower income (less than 1500 &#x20ac; per month) perceive more inequality against women in the Building Engineering sector, whereas those with a higher salary (more than 3000&#x20ac;) do not perceive any inequality. </p>
			<table-wrap id="t11">
				<label>Table 11</label>
				<caption>
					<title>
						<italic>Significant statistical sociodemographic features</italic>
					</title>
				</caption>
				<table>
					<colgroup>
						<col/>
						<col/>
						<col/>
					</colgroup>
					<thead>
						<tr>
							<th align="center">Variable </th>
							<th align="center">Perception of inequality</th>
							<th align="center">No perception of inequality</th>
						</tr>
					</thead>
					<tbody>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Exercise of the profession</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> &lt;30 years old <break/> Salaried employee</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> &gt;51 years old <break/> Self-employed</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Client/developer&#x2019;s preferences</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> Salaried employee <break/> Official or similar</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> Self-employed <break/> &gt; 3000 &#x20ac;</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Selection and recruitment processes</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> Salaried employee</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> 51-60 years old <break/> Self-employed <break/> &gt; 3000 &#x20ac;</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Income</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> 30-40 years old <break/> Salaried employee <break/> 1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> &gt; 51 years old <break/> Self-employed <break/> &gt; 3000 &#x20ac;</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Gender among colleagues</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> Self-employed</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> Official or similar</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">The value given by colleagues</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> 30-40 years old <break/> Salaried employee <break/> 1001-1500 &#x20ac;</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> &gt; 51 years old <break/> Self-employed <break/> &gt; 2001 &#x20ac;</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="left"> </td>
							<td align="center">
								<bold>Favorable attitude</bold>
							</td>
							<td align="center">
								<bold>Unfavorable attitude</bold>
							</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Actions to improve the reconciliation of family life and work</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> Salaried employee</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> Self-employed</td>
						</tr>
						<tr>
							<td align="center">Actions to study the situation of women in the sector</td>
							<td align="center">Women <break/> Salaried employee <break/> Official or similar</td>
							<td align="center">Men <break/> Self-employed</td>
						</tr>
					</tbody>
				</table>
				<table-wrap-foot>
					<fn id="TFN11">
						<p>
							<italic>Source</italic>: Own elaboration based on CGTAE data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">46</xref>).</p>
					</fn>
				</table-wrap-foot>
			</table-wrap>
			<p>Concerning attitude towards new measures leading to reduce and eradicate the discrimination against women in the Building Engineering sector, the pattern regarding the sociodemographic characteristics linked to favorable attitudes is similar to the pattern previously presented in regards to &#x2018;sex&#x2019; and &#x2018;exercise of the profession&#x2019;. Women and salaried employees, or officials or similar are the individuals who support the most this kind of measures. Nevertheless, as detractors, we could mention again men and self-employed individuals. </p>
			<p>In conclusion, the negative attitude of male workers in the Building Engineering field towards equality, or the recognition of inequality in the sector is in line with the findings obtained by Laura Arroyo in the Spanish framework in 2017. Her conclusions highlight two main ideas. On the one hand, for male interviewees, equal access to employment already exists in Spain. On the other hand, any man agrees with the idea of taking positive actions towards women, regardless of the sector involved. Among the reasons given for this attitude, they believe that these positive actions contradict the principle of meritocracy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>). </p>
			<p>In most Western countries, there is a considerable gap in the effort to reverse inequality among men and women, being women those who have made more achievements, and those who strive to change stereotypes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B49 B50 B51">(49)-(51)</xref>. One of the key aspects for such behavior lies in the rigidity of masculinity, and men&#x2019;s concern about the possibility of losing such masculinity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B52">52</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B53">53</xref>). The fact of not perpetuating masculine stereotypes, or not fulfilling the traditional role of man can cast doubt on a man&#x2019;s masculinity. This issue remains highly problematic in men, as masculinity still has a hierarchical vision, and therefore, there are positions of power at stake (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B49">49</xref>), (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B54">54</xref>). These male attitudes and behaviors have an impact on the organizational culture in enterprises. Public policies and positive actions put into effect to redress gender inequality are found to be ineffective because of those attitudes and behaviors. Hence, a sizeable gap between regulations and practices takes place (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B55">55</xref>).</p>
		</sec>
	</body>
	<back>
		<ack>
			<title>Aknowlegments</title>
			<p>Authors express their gratitude to the Spanish General Council of Technical Arquitecture. They designed and implemented the questionnaire, and provided the data used in this research. </p>
		</ack>
		<ref-list>
			<title>Referencias / References</title>
			<ref id="B1">
				<label>(1)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Block</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Croft</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>De Souza</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Schmader</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Do people care if men don&#x2019;t care about caring? The asymmetry in support for changing gender roles</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</source>
					<volume>83</volume>
					<fpage>112</fpage>
					<lpage>131</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.013</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B2">
				<label>(2)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Arroyo Barrio</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<source>Percepci&#xf3;n de los hombres ante la igualdad de g&#xe9;nero en el &#xe1;mbito laboral: relaci&#xf3;n entre la IGUALDAD legal y la igualdad efectiva</source>
					<publisher-name>Universidad de Salamanca</publisher-name>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B3">
				<label>(3)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Communaut&#xe9; &#xc9;conomique Europ&#xe9;enne</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>1957</year>
					<source>Trait&#xe9; instituant la Communaut&#xe9; &#xc9;conomique Europ&#xe9;enne</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:11957E/TXT&amp;from=EN">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:11957E/TXT&amp;from=EN</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B4">
				<label>(4)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>World Economic Forum</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<source>Global Gender Gap Report 2020</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf">http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B5">
				<label>(5)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Pew Research Center</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<source>A Changing World: Global Views on Diversity, Gender Equality, Family Life and the Importance of Religion</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/pew-research-center_global-views-of-cultural-change_2019-04-22.pdf">https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/pew-research-center_global-views-of-cultural-change_2019-04-22.pdf</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B6">
				<label>(6)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>EUROSTAT</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<source>Employment rates by sex, age and educational attainment level</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsa_ergaed$DV_318/default/table?lang=en">https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsa_ergaed$DV_318/default/table?lang=en</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B7">
				<label>(7)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Ipsos</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<source>International Women&#x2019;s Day 2019. Global attitudes towards gender equality</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/assets/iwd-giwl-main.pdf">https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/assets/iwd-giwl-main.pdf</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B8">
				<label>(8)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Rom&#xe1;n Onsalo</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>R&#xed;os Paniagua</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Traverso Cort&#xe9;s</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Gender barriers in the profesional development of building techniques women</article-title>
					<source>Revista de La Construcci&#xf3;n</source>
					<volume>12</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>87</fpage>
					<lpage>99</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4067/S0718-915X2013000100009</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B9">
				<label>(9)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Infante-Perea</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Rom&#xe1;n-Onsalo</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Navarro-Astor</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Expected career barriers in building engineering: does gender matter?</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering</source>
					<volume>24</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>43</fpage>
					<lpage>59</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2017018301</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B10">
				<label>(10)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Infante-Perea</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Rom&#xe1;n-Onsalo</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Navarro-Astor</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<article-title>An early view of the barriers to entry and career development in Building Engineering</article-title>
					<source>DYNA</source>
					<volume>82</volume>
					<issue>194</issue>
					<fpage>247</fpage>
					<lpage>253</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.15446/dyna.v82n194.49985</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B11">
				<label>(11)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Infante</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Rom&#xe1;n</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Traverso</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2012</year>
					<article-title>The Spanish construction sector under gender perspective. Analysis of working conditions</article-title>
					<source>Revista de La Construcci&#xf3;n</source>
					<volume>11</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>32</fpage>
					<lpage>43</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4067/S0718-915X2012000100004</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B12">
				<label>(12)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bauman</surname>
							<given-names>Z.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2000</year>
					<source>Liquid Modernity</source>
					<publisher-name>Polity Press</publisher-name>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B13">
				<label>(13)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Instituto Nacional de Estad&#xed;stica</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<source>Encuesta de Poblaci&#xf3;n Activa</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=4885&amp;L=0">https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=4885&amp;L=0</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B14">
				<label>(14)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>French</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Strachan</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<article-title>Women at work! Evaluating equal employment policies and outcomes in construction</article-title>
					<source>Equality, Diversity and Inclusion</source>
					<volume>34</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>227</fpage>
					<lpage>243</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/EDI-11-2013-0098</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B15">
				<label>(15)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>G&#xf3;mez</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Arrizabala</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>S&#xe1;nchez</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2010</year>
					<article-title>The role of women in construction research</article-title>
					<source>Materiales de Construcci&#xf3;n</source>
					<volume>60</volume>
					<fpage>143</fpage>
					<lpage>150</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3989/mc.2010.56909</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B16">
				<label>(16)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Clarke</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Pedersen</surname>
							<given-names>E. F.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Michielsens</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Susman</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<article-title>The european construction social partners: gender equality in theory and practice</article-title>
					<source>European Journal of Industrial Relations</source>
					<volume>11</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>151</fpage>
					<lpage>177</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0959680105053961</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B17">
				<label>(17)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Powell</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Sang</surname>
							<given-names>K. J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Equality, diversity and inclusion in the construction industry</article-title>
					<source>Construction Management and Economics</source>
					<volume>31</volume>
					<issue>8</issue>
					<fpage>795</fpage>
					<lpage>801</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/01446193.2013.837263</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B18">
				<label>(18)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bridges</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Wulff</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bamberry</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Krivokapic-Skoko</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Jenkins</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Negotiating gender in the male-dominated skilled trades: a systematic literature review</article-title>
					<source>Construction Management and Economics</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<issue>10</issue>
					<fpage>894</fpage>
					<lpage>916</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/01446193.2020.1762906</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B19">
				<label>(19)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>International Labour Organization</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<source>Employment by sex, economic activity and marital status - Annual</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ilo.org/shinyapps/bulkexplorer7/?lang=en&amp;segment=indicator&amp;id=EMP_TEMP_SEX_ECO_MTS_NB_A">https://www.ilo.org/shinyapps/bulkexplorer7/?lang=en&amp;segment=indicator&amp;id=EMP_TEMP_SEX_ECO_MTS_NB_A</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B20">
				<label>(20)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Sang</surname>
							<given-names>K. J. C.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Dainty</surname>
							<given-names>A. R. J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Ison</surname>
							<given-names>S. G.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Gender in the UK architectural profession: (re) producing and challenging hegemonic masculinity</article-title>
					<source>Work, Employment and Society</source>
					<volume>28</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>247</fpage>
					<lpage>264</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0950017013491306</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B21">
				<label>(21)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Watts</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2007</year>
					<article-title>Porn, pride and pessimism: experiences of women working in professional construction roles</article-title>
					<source>Work, Employment and Society</source>
					<volume>21</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>299</fpage>
					<lpage>316</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0950017007076641</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B22">
				<label>(22)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Powell</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bagilhole</surname>
							<given-names>B. M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Dainty</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2009</year>
					<article-title>How Women Engineers Do and Undo Gender: Consequences for Gender Equality</article-title>
					<source>Gender, Work &amp; Organization</source>
					<volume>16</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>411</fpage>
					<lpage>428</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00406.x</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B23">
				<label>(23)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Briscoe</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<article-title>Women and minority groups in UK construction: recent trends</article-title>
					<source>Construction Management and Economics</source>
					<volume>23</volume>
					<issue>10</issue>
					<fpage>1001</fpage>
					<lpage>1005</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/01446190500204739</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B24">
				<label>(24)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Wright</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Uncovering sexuality and gender: an intersectional examination of women&#x2019;s experience in UK construction</article-title>
					<source>Construction Management and Economics</source>
					<volume>31</volume>
					<issue>8</issue>
					<fpage>832</fpage>
					<lpage>844</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/01446193.2013.794297</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B25">
				<label>(25)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Wright</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Conley</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Advancing gender equality in the construction sector through public procurement: Making effective use of responsive regulation</article-title>
					<source>Economic and Industrial Democracy</source>
					<volume>41</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>975</fpage>
					<lpage>996</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0143831X17745979</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B26">
				<label>(26)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>&#xc7;inar</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Construction labour, subcontracting and masculinity: &#x201c;construction is a man&#x2019;s job.&#x201d;</article-title>
					<source>Construction Management and Economics</source>
					<volume>38</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>275</fpage>
					<lpage>290</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/01446193.2019.1690155</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B27">
				<label>(27)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bryce</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Far</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Gardner</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Barriers to career advancement for female engineers in Australia&#x2019;s civil construction industry and recommended solutions</article-title>
					<source>Australian Journal of Civil Engineering</source>
					<volume>17</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>10</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/14488353.2019.1578055</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B28">
				<label>(28)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="confproc">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Rom&#xe1;n-Onsalo</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Navarro--Astor</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Infante Perea</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<source>Barreras de carrera en la industria de la construcci&#xf3;n</source>
					<conf-name>V Congreso Universitario Internacional &#x201c;Investigaci&#xf3;n y G&#xe9;nero&#x201d;</conf-name>
					<isbn>9788494312038</isbn>
					<fpage>305</fpage>
					<lpage>323</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/43132/Pages%20from%20Investigacion_Genero_14-1-2-1.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y">https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/43132/Pages%20from%20Investigacion_Genero_14-1-2-1.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B29">
				<label>(29)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Recalde-Esnoz</surname>
							<given-names>I.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Ferr&#xe1;ndez</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Mor&#xf3;n</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Dorado</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>Inequalities in the Exercise and Continuity in Building Engineering in Spain. Factor Analysis Including Gender Perspective</article-title>
					<source>Sustainability</source>
					<volume>13</volume>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/su13105514</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B30">
				<label>(30)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Afolabi</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Oyeyipo</surname>
							<given-names>O.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Ojelabi</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Patience</surname>
							<given-names>T. O.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Balancing the Female Identity in the Construction Industry</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Construction in Developing Countries</source>
					<volume>24</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>83</fpage>
					<lpage>104</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21315/jcdc2019.24.2.4</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B31">
				<label>(31)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Naoum</surname>
							<given-names>S. G.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Harris</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Rizzutp</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Egbu</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Gender in the construction industry: literature review and comparative survey of men&#x2019;s and women&#x2019;s perceptions in UK construction consultancies</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Management in Engineering</source>
					<volume>36</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000731</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B32">
				<label>(32)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Reinking</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Martin</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: Theories, Movements and Ideas to Engage Girls in STEM</article-title>
					<source>Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research</source>
					<volume>7</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>148</fpage>
					<lpage>153</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7821/naer.2018.7.27</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B33">
				<label>(33)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Saewyc</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>A global perspective on gender roles and identity</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Adolescent Health</source>
					<volume>61</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.010</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B34">
				<label>(34)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Watts</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2009</year>
					<article-title>Leaders of men: Women &#x201c;managing&#x201d; in construction</article-title>
					<source>Work, Employment and Society</source>
					<volume>23</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>512</fpage>
					<lpage>530</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0950017009337074</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B35">
				<label>(35)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Ness</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2012</year>
					<article-title>Constructing Masculinity in the Building Trades: &#x2018;Most Jobs in the Construction Industry Can Be Done by Women.&#x2019;</article-title>
					<source>Gender, Work &amp; Organization</source>
					<volume>19</volume>
					<issue>6</issue>
					<fpage>654</fpage>
					<lpage>676</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00551.x</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B36">
				<label>(36)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Enshassi</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Ihsen</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Al Hallaq</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<article-title>Female Engineers&#x2019; Happiness and productivity in Organizations with paternalistic culture</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Engineering Education</source>
					<volume>33</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>13</fpage>
					<lpage>20</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/03043790701745944</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B37">
				<label>(37)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>UN Women</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<source>Are you ready for change? Gender equality attitudes study 2019</source>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Research-paper-Are-you-ready-for-change-Gender-equality-attitudes-study-2019-en.pdf">https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Research-paper-Are-you-ready-for-change-Gender-equality-attitudes-study-2019-en.pdf</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B38">
				<label>(38)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>English</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Le Jeune</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2012</year>
					<article-title>Do professional women and tradeswomen in the South African construction industry share common employment barriers despite progressive government legislation?</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice2</source>
					<volume>138</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>145</fpage>
					<lpage>152</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000095</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B39">
				<label>(39)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Dainty</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Lingard</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<article-title>Indirect discrimination in construction organisations and the impact on women&#x2019;s careers</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Management in Engineering</source>
					<volume>22</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>129</fpage>
					<lpage>134</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006)22:3(108)</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B40">
				<label>(40)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Hunte</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2016</year>
					<article-title>Black women and race and gender tensions in the trades</article-title>
					<source>Pace Review: A Journal of Social Justice</source>
					<volume>28</volume>
					<fpage>436</fpage>
					<lpage>443</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10402659.2016.1237087</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B41">
				<label>(41)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Sol&#xed;s</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Gonz&#xe1;lez</surname>
							<given-names>J. A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Pacheco</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<article-title>Estudio de egresados de Ingenier&#xed;a Civil en una Universidad de M&#xe9;xico</article-title>
					<source>Revista Ingenier&#xed;a e Investigaci&#xf3;n</source>
					<volume>26</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>129</fpage>
					<lpage>134</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/iei/v26n3/v26n3a15.pdf">http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/iei/v26n3/v26n3a15.pdf</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B42">
				<label>(42)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Byrne</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Clarke</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Meer</surname>
							<given-names>M. V. D.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2005</year>
					<article-title>Gender and ethnic minority exclusion from skilled occupations in construction: a western European comparison</article-title>
					<source>Construction Management and Economics</source>
					<volume>23</volume>
					<issue>10</issue>
					<fpage>1025</fpage>
					<lpage>1034</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/01446190500310759</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B43">
				<label>(43)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>General Assembly of the United Nations</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<source>Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development</source>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1891/9780826190123.ap02</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B44">
				<label>(44)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Consejo General de la Arquitectura T&#xe9;cnica de Espa&#xf1;a</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2019</year>
					<article-title>Encuesta sobre igualdad de g&#xe9;nero. Todav&#xed;a existen diferencias</article-title>
					<source>CERCHA</source>
					<issue>139</issue>
					<fpage>40</fpage>
					<lpage>42</lpage>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.cgate.es/cercha/pdf/139.pdf">https://www.cgate.es/cercha/pdf/139.pdf</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B45">
				<label>(45)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Consejo General de la Arquitectura T&#xe9;cnica de Espa&#xf1;a</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018a</year>
					<source>Distribuci&#xf3;n n&#xfa;mero de colegiados por sexo - Anual</source>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B46">
				<label>(46)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="report">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Consejo General de la Arquitectura T&#xe9;cnica de Espa&#xf1;a</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018b</year>
					<source>Encuesta sobre la igualdad de g&#xe9;nero en la profesi&#xf3;n de la arquitectura t&#xe9;cnica</source>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B47">
				<label>(47)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="legal-doc">
					<source>Ley Org&#xe1;nica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protecci&#xf3;n de Datos Personales y garant&#xed;a de los derechos digitales</source>
					<year>2018</year>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B48">
				<label>(48)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Pardo</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Ruiz</surname>
							<given-names>M. A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>San Mart&#xed;n</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<source>An&#xe1;lisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud I</source>
					<publisher-name>Editorial S&#xed;ntesis</publisher-name>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B49">
				<label>(49)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Croft</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Atkinson</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Sandstrom</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Orbell</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Aknin</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2021</year>
					<article-title>Loosening the GRIP (Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality) to Promote Gender Equality</article-title>
					<source>Personality and Social Psychology Review</source>
					<volume>25</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>66</fpage>
					<lpage>92</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/1088868320964615</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B50">
				<label>(50)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Allen</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Smith</surname>
							<given-names>J. L.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>The influence of Sexuality Stereotypes on Men&#x2019;s Experience of Gender-Role Incongruence</article-title>
					<source>Psychology of Men &amp; Masculinity</source>
					<volume>12</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>77</fpage>
					<lpage>96</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/a0019678</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B51">
				<label>(51)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Diekman</surname>
							<given-names>A. B.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Goodfriend</surname>
							<given-names>W.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Goodwin</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2004</year>
					<article-title>Dynamic stereotypes of power: Perceived change and stability in gender hierarchies</article-title>
					<source>Sex Roles</source>
					<volume>50</volume>
					<fpage>201</fpage>
					<lpage>215</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1023/B:SERS.0000015552.22775.44</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B52">
				<label>(52)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bosson</surname>
							<given-names>J. K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Vandello</surname>
							<given-names>J. A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression</article-title>
					<source>Current Directions in Psychological Science</source>
					<volume>20</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>82</fpage>
					<lpage>86</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0963721411402669</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B53">
				<label>(53)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Vandello</surname>
							<given-names>J. A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Bosson</surname>
							<given-names>J. K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Cohen</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Burnaford</surname>
							<given-names>R. M.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Weaver</surname>
							<given-names>J. R.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<article-title>Precarious manhood</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</source>
					<volume>95</volume>
					<issue>6</issue>
					<fpage>1325</fpage>
					<lpage>1339</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/a0012453</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B54">
				<label>(54)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>Croft</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Schmader</surname>
							<given-names>T.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Block</surname>
							<given-names>K.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<article-title>An Underexamined Inequality: Cultural and Psychological Barriers to Men&#x2019;s Engagemnt With Communal Roles</article-title>
					<source>Personality and Social Psychology Review</source>
					<volume>19</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>343</fpage>
					<lpage>370</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/1088868314564789</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B55">
				<label>(55)</label>
				<mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<string-name>
							<surname>S&#xe1;nchez-Mira</surname>
							<given-names>N.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Serrano Olivares</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</string-name>
						<string-name>
							<surname>Carrasquer Oto</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</string-name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>What slips through the cracks: The distance between regulations and practices shaping the gender pay gap</article-title>
					<source>Economic and Industrial Democracy</source>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0143831X20924457</pub-id>
				</mixed-citation>
			</ref>
		</ref-list>
	</back>
</article>